Characterizing user tagging and Co-occurring metadata in general and specialized metadata collections

This study aims to identify the categorical characteristics and usage patterns of the most popular image tags in Flickr. The “metadata usage ratio” is introduced as a means of assessing the usage of a popular tag as metadata. We also compare how popular tags are used as image tags or metadata in the Flickr general collection and the Library of Congress's photostream (LCP), also in Flickr. The Flickr popular tags in the list overall are categorically stable, and the changes that do appear reflect Flickr users' evolving technology-driven cultural experience. The popular tags in Flickr had a high number of generic objects and specific locations-related tags and were rarely at the abstract level. Conversely, the popular tags in the LCP describe more in the specific objects and time categories. Flickr users copied the Library of Congress-supplied metadata that related to specific objects or events and standard bibliographic information (e.g., author, format, time references) as popular tags in the LCP. Those popular tags related to generic objects and events showed a high metadata usage ratio, while those related to specific locations and objects showed a low image metadata usage ratio. Popular tags in Flickr appeared less frequently as image metadata when describing specific objects than specific times and locations for historical images in Flickr LCP collections. Understanding how people contribute image tags or image metadata in Flickr helps determine what users need to describe and query images, and could help improve image browsing and retrieval.

[1]  Erwin Panofsky,et al.  Meaning in the Visual Arts: Papers in and on Art History , 1955 .

[2]  Masood Masoodian,et al.  Looking for a picture: an analysis of everyday image information searching , 2006, Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '06).

[3]  Jennifer Trant,et al.  Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework , 2009, J. Digit. Inf..

[4]  Corinne Jörgensen,et al.  Attributes of Images in Describing Tasks , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[5]  Corinne Jörgensen,et al.  Image Access, the Semantic Gap, and Social Tagging as a Paradigm Shift , 2007 .

[6]  Ramesh Srinivasan,et al.  Digital Museums and Diverse Cultural Knowledges: Moving Past the Traditional Catalog , 2009, Inf. Soc..

[7]  Claudio Gutierrez,et al.  Survey of graph database models , 2008, CSUR.

[8]  Sara Shatford,et al.  Analyzing the Subject of a Picture: A Theoretical Approach , 1986 .

[9]  Marcel Worring,et al.  Classification of user image descriptions , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  Peter G. B. Enser,et al.  Analysis of user need in image archives , 1997, J. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Marcel Worring,et al.  Content-Based Image Retrieval at the End of the Early Years , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[12]  Chutiporn Anutariya,et al.  A comparison study of Flickr's folksonomies and ontologies , 2011, 2011 Eighth International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE).

[13]  Corinne Jörgensen,et al.  Image querying by image professionals , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  EunKyung Chung,et al.  Categorical and specificity differences between user-supplied tags and search query terms for images. An analysis of Flickr tags and Web image search queries , 2009, Inf. Res..

[15]  Pauline Rafferty,et al.  Constructing an image indexing template for The Children's Society: Users' queries and archivists' practice , 2007, J. Documentation.

[16]  Wooseob Jeong,et al.  Is Tagging Effective? - Overlapping Ratios with Other Metadata Fields , 2009, Dublin Core Conference.

[17]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Duality in information retrieval and the hypergeometric distribution , 1997, J. Documentation.

[18]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Image use within the work task model: Images as information and illustration , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Shih-Fu Chang,et al.  A conceptual framework and empirical research for classifying visual descriptors , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Robert M. Losee.  Term dependence: A basis for Luhn and Zipf models , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Elin K. Jacob,et al.  Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a Difference , 2004, Libr. Trends.

[23]  Jennifer Trant,et al.  Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept , 2006, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[24]  George Macgregor,et al.  Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool , 2006 .

[25]  Edie M. Rasmussen,et al.  Searching for images: The analysis of users' queries for image retrieval in American history , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Elaine G. Toms,et al.  Image use within the work task model: Images as information and illustration , 2009 .

[27]  David Bearman,et al.  Social Terminology Enhancement through Vernacular Engagement: Exploring Collaborative Annotation to Encourage Interaction with Museum Collections , 2005, D Lib Mag..

[28]  Tiah Edmunson-Morton.  Talking and Tagging: Using CONTENTdm and Flickr in the Oregon State University Archives , 2009 .

[29]  Pauline Rafferty,et al.  Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval , 2011, J. Documentation.

[30]  P. Marty.  My lost museum: User expectations and motivations for creating personal digital collections on museum websites , 2011 .

[31]  Hsin-Liang Chen,et al.  An analysis of image queries in the field of art history , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  Schubert Foo,et al.  Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Why do tagging systems work? , 2006, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[34]  Jason Vaughan.  Insights Into The Commons on Flickr , 2010 .

[35]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Shih-Fu Chang,et al.  Conceptual framework for indexing visual information at multiple levels , 1999, Electronic Imaging.

[37]  Besiki Stvilia,et al.  Member activities and quality of tags in a collection of historical photographs in Flickr , 2010 .

[38]  Emma L. Tonkin.  SEARCHING THE LONG TAIL: HIDDEN STRUCTURE IN SOCIAL TAGGING , 2006 .

[39]  Priscilla Caplan,et al.  Metadata fundamentals for all librarians , 2003 .

[40]  Besiki Stvilia,et al.  Establishing the value of socially-created metadata to image indexing , 2012 .

[41]  Roelof van Zwol,et al.  Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge , 2008, WWW.

[42]  JungWon Yoon,et al.  Towards a user-oriented thesaurus for non-domain-specific image collections , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[43]  Besiki Stvilia,et al.  User-generated collection-level metadata in an online photo-sharing system , 2009 .

[44]  Abebe Rorissa,et al.  A comparative study of Flickr tags and index terms in a general image collection , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  JungWon Yoon.  Searching for an image conveying connotative meanings: An exploratory cross-cultural study , 2008 .

[46]  James Ze Wang,et al.  Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age , 2008, CSUR.

[47]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  Peter G. B. Enser,et al.  The evolution of visual information retrieval , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[49]  Eero Sormunen,et al.  End-User Searching Challenges Indexing Practices in the Digital Newspaper Photo Archive , 2004, Information Retrieval.

[50]  Wolfgang G. Stock,et al.  "Power tags" in information retrieval , 2010, Libr. Hi Tech.

[51]  Diane Neal,et al.  A new model for semantic photograph description combining basic levels and user-assigned descriptors , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..